get_history_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing exactly what the entry contains: credentials are blanked, {{placeholders}} are preserved (enabling re-send/save), and the response body is NOT stored. The credential-blanking and non-persistence notes are precisely the behavioral traits an agent must know before re-using the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns, with the parenthetical earning its place by explaining the redaction/placeholder behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only single-entry getter with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: what is returned, what is redacted, and what is deliberately absent. Errors and pagination are irrelevant here, so nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema as 'from get_history'. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail for id, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'One history entry in full', then enumerates the payload (sent time, status, request as sent). The singular 'One ... in full' contrasts cleanly with the sibling list tool get_history, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it hints at follow-on actions ('so it can be re-sent or saved') which maps to send_request/save_request, but it never says when to prefer this over get_history or what prerequisite (a valid history id) it needs. Adequate but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.